Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association by Maina Kiai

7/27/2019 Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association by Maina Kiai

1/21

United Nations A/68/299

General Assembly Distr.: General7 August 2013

Original: English

13-42309 (E) 120913

*1342309*

Sixty-eighth session

Item 69 (b) of the provisional agenda*

Promotion and protection of human rights: human rights

questions, including alternative approaches for improving the

effective enjoyment of human rights and fundamental freedoms

Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

Note by the Secretary-General

The Secretary-General has the honour to transmit to the members of the

General Assembly the report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of

peaceful assembly and of association, Maina Kiai, submitted in accordance with

Human Rights Council resolution 21/16.

* A/68/150.
http://undocs.org/A/RES/21/16http://undocs.org/A/68/150http://undocs.org/A/68/150http://undocs.org/A/68/150http://undocs.org/A/RES/21/16


2/21

A/68/299

13-423092/21

Report of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedomof peaceful assembly and of association

SummaryThe present report constitutes the first report to the General Assembly of the

Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association.

It addresses concerns about the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful

assembly and of association in the context of elections. The Special Rapporteur is

deeply concerned about increasing human rights violations and abuses, which are

being committed in several parts of the world against those who exercise or seek to

exercise such rights in the context of elections and which indelibly mar such elections.


3/21

A/68/299

3/2113-42309

I. Introduction

1. The mandate of the Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful

assembly and of association was established by the Human Rights Council in its

resolution 15/21 for an initial period of three years. The Council appointed Maina

Kiai as Special Rapporteur on the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly andof association in March 2011, with a starting date of 1 May 2011. The present

report is the first report submitted to the General Assembly by the Special

Rapporteur, in response to the request by the Council, in its resolution 21/16,

that an annual report be presented to the General Assembly. The report addresses

concerns about the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of

association in the context of elections, and should be read in conjunction with the

Special Rapporteurs thematic reports to the Human Rights Council (A/HRC/20/27

and A/HRC/23/39).

2. Every year, elections, plebiscites and referendums are conducted at various

levels, including at the presidential, legislative and local levels in many countries.

The high-stakes competition that characterizes most elections has seen widespread

violations of human rights, including the right to life, freedom of expression,freedom of peaceful assembly and freedom of association. From the perspective of

the Special Rapporteur, the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of

association have increasingly come under attack as incumbent or incoming regimes

seek to retain or gain power at all costs. The Special Rapporteur is convinced that

the context of elections deserves special focus because the ability of individuals and

associations to form and operate freely is particularly at risk during those periods.

The Special Rapporteur is persuaded to draw this conclusion as a result of the

increasing complaints he has received concerning harassment, intimidation and the

undue restrictions placed on individuals, associations and their members in the run-up

to or following contested elections.

3. In writing the present report, the Special Rapporteur benefited greatly from

participating in a one-day expert meeting held in Geneva on 1 June 2013. TheSpecial Rapporteur would like to thank all those who were involved in organizing

the meeting, and all those who shared their experiences to inform the report, both at

that meeting and in other forums.. The Special Rapporteur also took into account

relevant elements of work available within the Council.1 The country situations

mentioned in the present report have been the subject of communications sent to

Governments, as well as press releases and reports issued by special procedures

mandate holders and high-level United Nations officials.

II. Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association asintegral part to free and fair elections

A. Democracy and freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

4. Democracy, as a system through which the people participate directly or

indirectly in the conduct of public affairs, has broad appeal across the globe.

__________________

1 This includes the report of the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights in Belarus,

with a focus on human rights in the electoral processes (A/68/276).
http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21http://undocs.org/A/RES/21/16http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/23/39http://undocs.org/A/HRC/23/39http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/RES/21/16http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21


4/21

A/68/299

13-423094/21

Elections, referendums and plebiscites, in which people choose their representatives

and express their choice of laws or policies, are held in the majority of countries in

the world. As stipulated in article 21 (3) of the Universal Declaration of Human

rights, democracy is a process in which [t]he will of the people [is] to be the basis

of the authority of government. It is commonly thought of as a process with regular

periodic, free and competitive elections to decide on policies directly or indirectlythrough chosen representatives that must be accountable to their electorate. In other

words, democracy, as reflected in the electoral process, generally involves the use of

clear predictable processes with uncertain outcomes, while a non-democracy can be

identified by the fact that the whole electoral process is characterized by unclear and

uncertain processes but with predictable outcomes. Nevertheless, the quality of

elections is increasingly coming under scrutiny in order to ensure that election

outcomes are representative of the will of the people. Elections confer legitimacy on

Governments; if those elections are not considered to reflect the will of the people,

therefore, a sense of discontent and disenfranchisement may result and sometimes

cause violent conflict. In order to sustain the democratic ideal, it is necessary for

regimes to uphold the rule of law, respect and protect human rights and remain

vigilant and responsive to peoples views and opinions at all times.

5. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are pertinent to

the democratic process, both during the election period and between elections. The

Special Rapporteur reiterates that these rights are essential components of

democracy since they empower women, men and youth to express their political

opinions, engage in literary and artistic pursuits and other cultural, economic and

social activities, engage in religious observances or other beliefs, form and join

trade unions and cooperatives, and elect leaders to represent their interests and hold

them accountable (Council resolution 15/21, preamble).

6. More specifically, the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of

association are a critical means for individuals and groups of individuals to

participate in public affairs. The exercise of such rights provides avenues through

which people can aggregate and voice their concerns and interests and endeavour tofashion governance that responds to their issues. For example, such rights are

essential in order to campaign and participate in public rallies, form political parties,

participate in voter education activities, cast votes, observe and monitor elections

and hold candidates and elected officials accountable.

7. International law contains principles and standards by which the electoral

process and outcomes can be measured. Approaching assessments by recognizing

that States have accepted certain legal commitments and that the elections they

conduct should meet those commitments provides uniformity and objectivity to

election observation. The universality, interrelatedness and interdependence of

human rights are also reinforced by States having the responsibility to ensure the

exercise of all rights during the electoral process in order to achieve positive

outcomes. Such an approach recognizes that a successful electoral process goes

beyond the events on the day that votes are cast. The legal framework, polit ical

environment and institutional capacities before, during and after polling day, have

an impact on how rights are enjoyed. In addition, the Special Rapporteur believes

that an electoral process, in which widespread barriers are systematically placed on

the exercise of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, cannot

be said to be either free or fair and, as such, the outcome should not be considered

to be the result of genuine elections, as required under international law.
http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21


5/21

A/68/299

5/2113-42309

8. The maintenance of peace during the voting process is necessary for the

electorate to turn out and exercise their right to vote. Nevertheless, although

important, it should not provide a justification for continuing electoral malpractices

and unjustifiable restrictions on the rights to peaceful assembly and of association or

other rights, for example, unlimited and uncontrolled bans on protests or

demonstrations against election results. Where such rights are violated at any pointduring the electoral process, prompt and effective remedies should be available and

accessible, presided over by impartial arbiters.

9. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur focuses on the role of associations

broadly, including political parties, as central vehicles through which individuals

can take part in the conduct of peaceful affairs through chosen representatives.

Political parties have an essential role to play in ensuring pluralism and the proper

functioning of democracy.2 The present report adopts the definition of a political

party as a free association of persons, one of the aims of which is to participate in

the management of public affairs, including through the presentation of candidates

to free and democratic elections.3 Of significance is the fact that a political party is

an association (A/HRC/20/27, paras. 51-52), albeit a specialized one that may be

regulated by separate legislation and that is subject to rules different from those ofother associations. The Special Rapporteur considers the key difference between

political parties and other associations to be the ability of political parties to present

candidates for elections and to subsequently form governments, should those

candidates win in genuine elections. Hence, he stresses that the engagement of civil

society organizations in the electoral process should not lead to their being

involuntary labelled or treated as political parties simply as a result of their having

participated in public life in the way in which they have chosen.

10. The Special Rapporteur also acknowledges that, while only a segment of civil

society organizations can work directly on election-related issues, such as voter

education, election observation, the reform of electoral institutions and the

accountability of candidates and elected officials, the election period provides a

prime opportunity for a broader range of civil society organizations to engage withwould-be elected representatives, highlight their concerns and interests, with a view

to getting policy responses, and in general exercise their rights to participate in

public affairs. For that reason, any discussion of the rights to freedom of peaceful

assembly and of association in the context of elections must be inclusive of all civil

society organizations, regardless of their areas of focus.

11. The term elections as used in the present report includes those held to

choose presidential, legislative and local administrative representatives, plebiscites

and referendums. The electoral period does not always fit into a neat temporal

delineation. Indeed, it is arguable that the end of one election period to the extent

that this is determinable signals the beginning of the next. Some events in the

election process may be capable of a definite time allocation, for example, voter

education, campaign period, voting day(s) and vote counting. However, other

activities that are relevant to the process may be ongoing, continuing long after voting

__________________

2 European Court of Human Rights, United Communist Party of Turkey and Others v. Turkey,

Application No. 20/1997/804/1007, 25 May 1998, para. 41.3 Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe (OSCE)/Office for Democratic Institutions

and Human Rights and the Venice Commission, Guidelines on Political Party Regulation,

(Warsaw/Strasbourg, 2011), para. 9.
http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27


6/21

A/68/299

13-423096/21

has been done, such as legislative reform and institution strengthening. By

describing the scope of the present report as covering the period before, during and

after elections, the Special Rapporteur seeks to convey that the context of elections is

not about a specific event or a particular time period, for example, voting day

although casting ones vote is a pivotal moment in elections. The Special Rapporteur

notes that elections are often highly charged contests at which much lies at stake forauthorities and the electorate. In that context, States have an obligation to respect and

facilitate the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association throughout the

entire process.

B. International legal framework related to the rights to freedom of

peaceful assembly and of association in the context of elections

12. In its resolution15/21, the Human Rights Council calls upon States to respect

and fully protect the rights of all individuals to assemble peacefully and associate

freely, including in the context of elections. In addition to the notion of democracy,

the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association are implicit in the right

to take part in the Government of ones country, as affirmed in the UniversalDeclaration of Human Rights, which states in article 21 (3) that [t]he will of the

people shall be the basis of the authority of government; this will shall be expressed in

periodic and genuine elections which shall be by universal and equal suffrage and

shall be held by secret vote or by equivalent free voting procedures. Similarly, article

25 of the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights affirms every citizens

right without prohibited distinctions and unreasonable restrictions: (a) to take part in

the conduct of public affairs, directly or through freely chosen representatives; (b) to

vote and to be elected at genuine periodic elections which shall be by universal and

equal suffrage and shall be held by secret ballot, guaranteeing the free expression of

the will of the electors; and (c) to have access, on general terms of equality, to public

service in his country.4 The Human Rights Committee recognizes that the full

enjoyment of those rights depends on the free communication of information and

ideas about public and political issues between citizens, candidates and elected

representatives, which requires the free exercise of the rights to peaceful assembly and

association, among other rights (general comment No. 25, para. 25). The General

Assembly, in its resolution 59/201 declared that freedom of association and peaceful

assembly were essential elements of democracy, together with the right to vote and to

be elected at genuine periodic free elections, and encouraged the strengthening of

political party systems and civil society organizations.

13. The centrality of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association

in the context of elections is affirmed in various other international and regional

human rights treaties5 and other bodies.6 Member States of the African Union in the

__________________

4

See also article 7 of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against Women;article 29 of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities; article 23 (1) (b) of the

American Convention on Human Rights; article 13 of the African Charter on Human and

Peoples Rights; article 33 of the Arab Charter on Human Rights; and para. 25 of the Human

Rights Declaration of the Association of Southeast Asian Nations.5 See, for example, article 7 (b) of the Convention on the Elimination of Discrimination against

Women and article 29 (b) (i) of the Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities.6 Declaration on free and fair elections, adopted by the Inter-Parliamentary Council at its

154th session (Paris, 26 March 1994).
http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21http://undocs.org/A/RES/59/201http://undocs.org/A/RES/59/201http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21


7/21

A/68/299

7/2113-42309

Declaration on the Principles Governing Democratic Elections in Africa (sect. III (d))

explicitly commit themselves to safeguarding the human and civil liberties of all

citizens, including the freedom of movement, assembly, association, expression, and

campaigning, as well as access to the media on the part of all stakeholders, during

electoral processes. The Organization for Security and Cooperation in Europe

Copenhagen Document,7 which outlines the commitment of member States in thefield of elections, explicitly guarantees the rights of peaceful assembly and of

association (paras. 9.2 and 9.3). Although other regional instruments on democracy

do not explicitly refer to the right to freedom of association, they recognize that

polit ical parties and other forms of associations are vital components for the

strengthening of democracy.8

14. The variety of instruments that explicitly or implicitly recognize the ability of

political parties and other forms of associations to form and operate within the

context of elections or, more generally, democracy, is an indicator of consensus at

least at the standard-setting level around the centrality of those rights. The Special

Rapporteurs experience on the implementation of those rights is less optimistic. He

notes that, in the context of elections, rights are more susceptible to restriction, and

therefore urges strict adherence to international human rights standards. Althoughfreedom must be the rule and restrictions the exception (A/HRC/20/27, para. 16,

A/HRC/23/39 para. 18), the Special Rapporteur deplores the fact that, in too many

instances, restrictions aim to stifle critics and do not comply with international law,

that is: to be prescribed by law, and to be necessary in a democratic society in the

interests described in articles 21 and 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights.9

15. The significance of equal protection of the rights to peaceful assembly and

association in the context of elections for everyone is heightened in the context of

elections because of the potential for the exacerbation of vulnerabilities during this

period. The Special Rapporteur notes the inclination of actors in the electoral contest

to exploit racial, ethnic, religious, political, national or social origin, among other

distinctions explicitly prohibited in article 2 of the International Covenant on Civiland Political Rights, with a view to excluding opponents. He emphasizes that these

rights are guaranteed for everyone on the basis of equality (A/HRC/20/27, para. 13),

and that States therefore have the obligation to offer effective protection against

discrimination. In the context of elections, any temporary measures designed to

enhance the ability of marginalized groups or groups most at risk to exercise their

rights, such as women, victims of discrimination because of their sexual orientation

and gender identity, youth, persons belonging to minorities, indigenous peoples,

non-nationals, including stateless persons, refugees or migrants, and members of

religious groups, as well as activists advocating economic, social, and cultural rights,

and used as a mechanism to level the playing field, do not constitute discrimination.

__________________

7 Available at www.osce.org/odihr/elections/14304.8 African Charter on Democracy Elections and Governance, articles 3, 12; Inter-American

Democratic Charter, articles 5, 27.9 For an analysis of permissible restrictions, see, inter alia, A/HRC/20/27, para. 15-17.
http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/23/39http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/23/39http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27


8/21

A/68/299

13-423098/21

III. Freedom of peaceful assembly

16. The right to freedom of peaceful assembly, that is, to both organize and

participate in indoor and outdoor peaceful assemblies, has long proven to be a key

one in the context of elections. This right enables candidates to such elections to

mobilize their supporters and give resonance and visibility to their political messages.Elections are also a unique opportunity for women, men and youth from all parts of

society, to express their views and aspirations, either for status quo or for change, that

is to say, to voice support for the Government and ruling party, or dissent. Dissent is a

legitimate part of the exercise of the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, especially

in the context of elections, as it is a unique opportunity for pluralist expression

through peaceful means.

17. In this regard, as mentioned during the Human Rights Council panel discussion

on the promotion and protection of human rights in the context of peaceful protests,

the Special Rapporteur is of the opinion that participating in peaceful protests is an

alternative to violence and armed force as a means of expression and change which we

should support. It must thus be protected, and protected robustly (see A/HRC/19/40,

para. 13). The Council shares this approach and stressed in its resolution 22/10 thatpeaceful protests should not be viewed as a threat, and therefore encouraged all States

to engage in an open, inclusive and meaningful dialogue when dealing with peaceful

protests and their causes. The Council further stressed that everyone must be able to

express their grievances or aspirations in a peaceful manner, including through public

protests without fear of reprisals or of being intimidated, harassed, injured, sexually

assaulted, beaten, arbitrarily arrested and detained, tortured, killed or subjected to

enforced disappearance. This is all the more true in the context of elections when

tension is at its highest with considerable political, economic and social interests at

stake.

18. However, in many countries, elections have been marred by human rights

violations and abuses. For instance, in September 2009, in Guinea, some 50,000

peaceful demonstrators gathered in a stadium to protest against the possible candidacyof Capitain Moussa Dadis Camara for the presidential elections of January 2010.

Security forces opened fire and used bayonets and knives to disperse the crowd. More

than 150 persons were killed, and over a thousand injured. Many individuals were

arrested on the scene, at their home or in hospitals. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, in

June 2009, following the declaration of victory for President Ahmadinejad, security

forces killed several protestors when they peacefully took to the streets to contest the

election results. Security forces opened fire during the demonstrations and used batons

and pepper spray to disperse the crowds. Several hundred people were arrested during

the protests following the presidential elections of 2009. In the Russian Federation,

peaceful protests against alleged fraudulent elections in the context of parliamentary

elections held in December 2011 were met with excessive use of force, with over a

thousand persons detained in various cities. Various acts of harassment, intimidation,

arbitrary detention of several activists and members of the opposition also occurred inthe context of the presidential protests on 6 May 2012. In the Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela, in the wake of the presidential elections of April 2013, peaceful

demonstrations held in front of the offices of the national electoral commission in

several states were met with brute force by security forces, along with arbitrary

arrests. In Malaysia, security forces used indiscriminate force to repress a peaceful
http://undocs.org/A/HRC/19/40http://undocs.org/A/RES/22/10http://undocs.org/A/RES/22/10http://undocs.org/A/HRC/19/40


9/21

A/68/299

9/2113-42309

protest organized by the Coalition for Fair and Free Elections (Bersih), which

advocates for the reform of the electoral process in that country.

19. Apart from using excessive force against peaceful protesters, in some

instances, States have criminalized the participation in and organization of peaceful

assemblies during election time, with a view to sanctioning or deterring those willingor intending to do so. In Ethiopia, several peaceful demonstrators and human rights

defenders were charged with crimes of outrage against the constitutional order, and

sentenced to life imprisonment for having participated in a demonstration against

alleged fraud in the general elections of May 2005, in which over 190 protestors were

reportedly killed by law enforcement authorities. After signing a statement admitting

that their activities had been unconstitutional, they received a pardon and were freed.

In the run-up to the legislative elections in Bahrain in September 2011, numerous

human rights defenders and their relatives were arrested, dismissed from their jobs

and subjected to intimidation and harassment for various politically motivated

offences, including participating in illegal gatherings. Following the presidential

elections in December 2010 in Belarus, hundreds of persons protesting on election

night were detained, including civil society activists, journalists, and opposition

leaders, including presidential candidates. A peaceful protestor was subsequentlysentenced to three years and six months in a labour colony on charges of mass

disorder, for his participation in peaceful protests. He was initially detained for an

administrative offence, but was later charged with a criminal offence, despite the fact

that the police officer who had filed his arrest warrant stated in court that he had not

actually seen him during the protest. Similarly, in the Russian Federation, charges of

mass disorder have been pressed against peaceful protestors during election time.

Many demonstrators were arrested and accused, inter alia, of public intimidation

and public incitation. Peaceful demonstrators in Azerbaijan have increasingly been

targeted in the context of the forthcoming elections of October 2013, with several of

them being arrested and/or fined. In Nepal in January 2006, four human rights

defenders were arrested because of their involvement in the organization of large-

scale peaceful demonstrations calling for a boycott of municipal elections scheduled

for the following month.

20. The Special Rapporteur warns against the detention of peaceful demonstrators,

with a view to preventing their participation in assemblies which are critical of the

Government or ruling party. He is similarly concerned about restriction orders

prohibiting demonstrators and defenders monitoring assemblies from remaining in,

entering, or passing through a city, as occurred, for instance, in Malaysia in July 2011.

21. Fundamentally, the Special Rapporteur believes that all peaceful assemblies

held during the electoral process, whether or not in support of the ruling party or the

incumbent Government, should be entitled to equal treatment. Such assemblies should

receive equal protection and facilitation from the State, in fulfilment of its positive

obligation in this regard, irrespective of which category or group the demonstrators

belong to. In this connection, the Special Rapporteur warns against the increased

vulnerability of the aforementioned marginalized groups or groups most at risk from

attacks, derogatory comments, stigmatization, and undue restrictions, with a view to

serving political agendas, often from different parties. Some of them may also face the

revocation of passports and work permits for having taken part in solidarity protests.

As a consequence, peaceful assemblies organized by such groups, which may want to

seize the opportunity of elections to draw attention to their respective plights, are

adversely impacted. The Special Rapporteur is horrified by the aforementioned


10/21

A/68/299

13-4230910/21

incidents in Guinea in September 2009, where many women participating in the

demonstration or present in the area were stripped naked and sexually assaulted,

including by gang rape, both at the stadium and in detention. In Zimbabwe,

demonstrators peacefully advocating women rights were brutalized in the context of

elections. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, five students were among those killed by

security forces in June 2009.

22. General Assembly laws, which are conducive to the enjoyment of the right

to freedom of peaceful assembly, in compliance with international human rights

law, should be applied to events related to the electoral process. In particular, these

laws should allow and facilitate spontaneous assemblies, bearing in mind that

greater tolerance is needed in times of elections, where diverse views and opinions

are expressed.

23. A central part of the positive State obligation to protect those exercising the right

to freedom of peaceful assembly is to ensure protection against agents provocateurs

and counterdemonstrators, whose aim is to disrupt or disperse such assemblies. Such

individuals include those belonging to the State apparatus or working on its behalf.

The Special Rapporteur is concerned about the States use of agents provocateurs to

disrupt assemblies, as was reportedly the case in Senegal in January 2012, prior to the

first round of the presidential elections. Similarly, greater efforts should be made to

allow, protect and facilitate peaceful simultaneous assemblies, and peaceful

counterdemonstrations, whenever possible. In sum, all forms of peaceful assemblies

should receive greater protection and facilitation from the authorities.

24. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur recalls that the right to freedom of

peaceful assembly does not require the issuance of a permit to hold an assembly. If

necessary, a mere prior notification, intended for large assemblies or for assemblies at

which some degree of disruption is anticipated, may be required. Spontaneous

peaceful assemblies, which usually occur in reaction to a specific event such as the

announcement of results and which by definition cannot be subject to prior

notification, should be more tolerated in the context of elections. In addition, the

Special Rapporteur considers laws establishing authorization procedures to be evenmore problematic in the context of elections, as authorization may be arbitrarily

denied, especially when demonstrators intend to criticize Government policies. In the

Sudan, a peaceful demonstration organized by an independent gubernatorial candidate

for the April 2010 elections was curbed by police forces invoking the failure of the

organizers to seek permission. Several protestors were arrested and/or injured by

security forces.

25. On the contrary, elections should never be seen as a pretext for States to

unduly restrict the right to freedom of peaceful assembly. As previously mentioned,

blanket bans, which are intrinsically disproportionate and discriminatory, should be

prohibited, and restrictions on a peaceful assembly in relation to its time, place and

manner should be limited to the extent that such restrictions meet the aforementioned

strict test of necessity and proportionality (see A/HRC/23/39, para. 59). In fact, giventhe importance of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association in the

context of elections, the threshold for imposing such restrictions should be higher than

usual: the criteria of necessity in a democratic society and proportionality should

be more difficult to meet during election time. In this regard, the Special Rapporteur is

dismayed that blanket bans have been used during election time, with a view to

muzzling dissenting voices. In Kenya, in March 2013, following the results of the


11/21

A/68/299

11/2113-42309

presidential elections, the police chief reportedly banned all public gatherings,

including illegal groupings around the Supreme Court, prayer meetings, political

meetings and rallies, until a petition challenging the presidential poll results was

heard and decided upon. That decision was reportedly based on the fact that

demonstrations may have triggered animosity and violence. When justified, time,

place and manner restrictions which comply with international human rightsnorms and standards should be applied equally, once again, whether the peaceful

assembly is in favour of or against the Government and the ruling party.

26. The Special Rapporteur further warns against imposing a state of emergency

during election time, in order to temporarily suspend the rights to freedom of

peaceful assembly. Should this nevertheless occur, he recalls that, according to the

Human Rights Committee, during a state of emergency, the rights to freedom of

peaceful assembly and of association should not be derogated since the possibility

of restricting certain Covenant rights under the terms of, for instance, freedom of

assembly, is generally sufficient during such situations and no derogation from the

provisions in question would be justified by the exigencies of the situation.10

27. The Special Rapporteur recalls that organizers of peaceful protests should not

bear responsibility for the unlawful behaviour of others, including in times of

elections. In Malaysia, in May 2012, the federal Government announced that it would

sue the organizers of the Bersih 3.0 rally of 28 April 2012 calling for free and fair

elections, in relation to property which was allegedly destroyed during the said rally.

28. It is also important to allow the unimpeded access to and use of the Internet, in

particular social media, and other information and communication technology,

which are essential tools, especially in times of elections, by which the right to

freedom of peaceful assembly can be exercised, but also monitored and reported

upon in relation to human rights violations and abuses. In the Islamic Republic of

Iran, in the context of the presidential elections of 2009, access to social media was

temporarily blocked across the country, since many bloggers reported on violations

against peaceful protestors and foreign media were denied access. In Nepal, in

relation to the aforementioned demonstration, telephone lines and mobile phoneswere cut off in Kathmandu and other major cities by the Nepalese authorities.

29. The Special Rapporteur finally emphasizes again the crucial role played by

human rights defenders, including journalists, who monitor assemblies and who

have been targeted in the context of elections. In Belarus, in December 2010, the

Chair of the Belarusian Helsinki Committee, among other activists, was arrested and

detained by security forces while observing a demonstration organized by an

opposition candidate, which was held in front of the Government headquarters. He

was taken to pre-trial detention facility before being placed in police custody. In

Malaysia, media personnel covering a protest organized by Bersih were allegedly

targeted by security forces, while documenting police brutality, despite clearly

identifying themselves as media personnel.

__________________

10 General comment No. 29 (2001) on derogations from provisions of the Covenant during a state

of emergency, para. 5.


12/21

A/68/299

13-4230912/21

IV. Freedom of association

A. Political parties

30. Everyone has the right to form or join a political party and conversely, no one

should be compelled to belong to a political party. The Human Rights Committee, inits general comment No. 25 (para. 26), has stated that political parties and

membership in parties play a significant role in the conduct of public affairs and the

election process. Political parties are indeed the primary vehicles through which

people can participate in the conduct of public affairs. The Special Rapporteur

recognises political parties as a subset of associations included in the right to freedom

of association enshrined in article 22 of the International Covenant on Civil and

Political Rights. As such, the principles and minimum standards elaborated by the

Special Rapporteur in his thematic report on best practices (A/HRC/20/27) generally

apply to the regulation of political parties. Nevertheless, political parties are

organizations formed to carry out particular objectives, that is, presenting candidates

for elections in order to be represented in political institutions and to exercise political

power on any level, national or local,11 and may therefore be subject to specific

requirements not necessary for other civil society organizations. According to the

European Court of Human Rights, it is in the nature of the role they play that political

parties, the only bodies which can come to power, also have the capacity to influence

the whole of the regime in their countries. By the proposals for an overall societal

model which they put before the electorate and by their capacity to implement those

proposals once they come to power, polit ical parties differ from other organizations

which intervene in the political arena.12

31. The Special Rapporteur agrees with the Human Rights Committee, in

paragraph 19 of general comment No. 25, that freedom of expression, assembly and

association are essential conditions for the effective exercise of the right to vote and

must be fully protected and that States should ensure that, in their internal

management, political parties respect the applicable provisions of article 25 in order to

enable citizens to exercise their rights thereunder. As the Special Rapporteur notedpreviously, a minimum number of individuals may be required to establish a political

party, but this number should not be set at a level that would discourage people from

engaging in associations (A/HRC/20/27, para. 54). Other requirements might be in

force, such as concerning geographic or ethnic representation, but the Special

Rapporteur warns against this type of measure that is ultimately discriminatory to the

formation of any political party. A registration regime is not necessary for the

formation or operation of political parties, but where it is in place, it should never be

subject to authorities prior approval.

32. In the light of the fact that political parties have a decision-making role in

ensuring pluralism and the proper functioning of democracy, a presumption in favour

of formation of political parties means that adverse decisions should be strictly

justified in accordance with the standards established by article 22 of the InternationalCovenant on Civil and Political Rights in relation to proportionality and necessity in a

democratic society. As for the right to freedom of peaceful assembly, the Special__________________

11 European Commission for Democracy through Law, Venice Commission, Code of conduct of

good practice in the field of political parties, 2009, CDL-AD(2009)021.12 European Court of Human Rights, Refah Partisi (The Welfare Party) and Others v. Turkey,

Application Nos. 41340/98, 41342/98, 41343/98, 41344/98, 13 February 2003, para. 87.
http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27


13/21

A/68/299

13/2113-42309

Rapporteur believes that the proportionality and necessity test should be stricter in

times of elections. In 2011, concerns were expressed about the case of a few Saudi

citizens who submitted a request for recognition of what could have been Saudi

Arabias first political party, and who were a few days later arrested and requested to

sign an undertaking that they would renounce their activities with the party. Those

who refused to do so were placed in detention. The Special Rapporteur considers thisto be an example of a blatant violation of the right to freedom of association. By all

means, political parties whose applications have been rejected should be provided

the opportunity to seek remedy before an independent and impartial court

(A/HRC/20/27, paras. 60-61).

33. Political parties are entitled to a level playing field in order to compete fairly

in the electoral contest. A level playing field does not mean that all parties should

have the same treatment in every case; rather, they should receive equitable treatment

based on reasonable and objective criteria. All parties complying with international

human rights norms and standards are entitled to equality of opportunity. As such, at a

minimum, no political party should be discriminated against, unfairly advantaged or

disadvantaged by the State. In the present report, the Special Rapporteur emphasizes

equality of opportunity for political parties in respect of their ability to access fundingand to exercise their rights to freedom of expression, including through peaceful

demonstrations.

34. In his second thematic report (A/HRC/23/39), the Special Rapporteur identified

the ability of associations to access financial resources as an integral element of the

right to freedom of association. The question of funding has far-reaching

consequences on the right to freedom of association for political parties in the context

of elections. Funding ensures that political parties are able to function on a day-to-day

basis, to participate in the political arena, to represent a plurality of views, interests

and perspectives, thus strengthening democracy. Funding may also have perverse

effects on democratic potential, requiring certain regulation. The Special Rapporteur

shares the view of the Human Rights Committee, in general comment No. 25 (para.

19) that reasonable limitations on campaign expenditure may be justified where this isnecessary to ensure that the free choice of voters is not undermined or the democratic

process distorted by the disproportionate expenditure on behalf of any candidate or

party.

35. Some overarching principles could be drawn upon to guide the development

and operation of political party financing rules. Public financing of political parties is

often used as an avenue to provide equality of opportunity to all parties and guarantee

competitive participation of diverse ideas and views. Public funding principally

benefits parties that are unable to otherwise raise private funds for any number of

reasons, including because they are smaller parties, or their ideology does not appeal

to a majority of would-be donors, or those that represent marginalized groups, such as

women and youth. Hence, public funding should not be used to interfere with a

partys independence and fu rthe r or crea te overdependency on State resources.13

36. More broadly, party resources should be differentiated from public resources.

Public resources should not be used to tilt the electoral playing field in a partys

favour and in particular the incumbent party or its candidates. This principle extends

__________________

13 OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Venice Commission,

Guidelines on Political Party Regulation, 2010, paras. 176-177.


14/21

A/68/299

13-4230914/21

to the use of State institutions, such as police forces, the judiciary, the prosecutorial

authority, law enforcement agencies and others, which should be impartial when

controlling or limiting the activities of political parties, such as by initiating

politically motivated court cases against rival candidates, in effect, preventing them

from engaging in campaign activities.

37. Pluralism is a hallmark of democracy with political parties as catalysts for

debate and dialogue in democratic societies, such debate forming the basis of the

voters choice of representatives. The European Court of Human Rights considers that

there can be no democracy without pluralism. It is for that reason that freedom of

expression is applicable not only to information or ideas that are favourably

received or regarded as inoffensive or as a matter of indifference, but also to those that

offend, shock or disturb.14 In another landmark decision, the Court found a violation

of freedom of association stating that mention of the consciousness of belonging to a

minority and the preservation and development of a minoritys culture cannot be said

to constitute a threat to democratic society, even though it may provoke tensions. It

further stated that the emergence of tensions is one of the unavoidable consequences

of pluralism, that is to say the free discussion of all political ideas.15

38. Political parties thus, have the freedom to choose and pursue ideologies, even

if these are unpopular with the authorities or the public in general, including the

ability to call for a boycott of elections, without fearing retaliation for doing so. The

freedom of political parties to expression and opinion, particularly through electoral

campaigns, including the right to seek, receive and impart information, is as such,

essential to the integrity of elections. The Special Rapporteur recalls that, in its

resolution 12/16, the Human Rights Council made clear that, in principle, no

restriction is permissible with regard, inter alia, to: discussion of Government policies

and political debate; reporting on human rights, Government activities and corruption

in Government; engaging in election campaigns, peaceful demonstrations or political

activities, including for peace or democracy; and expression of opinion and dissent,

religion or belief, including by persons belonging to minorities or vulnerable groups.

The Special Rapporteur emphasizes that, only when a political party or any of itscandidates uses violence or advocates for violence or national, racial or religious

hatred constituting incitement to discrimination, hostility or violence (art. 20,

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, also reflected in art. 5 of the

International Convention on the Elimination of All Forms of Racial

Discrimination),16 or when it carries out activities or acts aimed at the destruction of

the rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights law (art. 5,

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights), can it be lawfully prohibited.

39. Central to the freedom of expression of political parties is the opportunity for

them to have equal access to the media, particularly where the latter is State-owned

or controlled. Legislation should provide a clear framework for the implementation

of equal access to media, including during the campaign period. For example, all

parties presenting candidates for elections are entit led to coverage by public media,

and in this regard, the allocation of free media time ensures that all political parties,

__________________

14 European Court of Human Rights, Handyside v. United Kingdom , para. 49.15 European Court of Human Rights, Ouranio Toxo v. Greece, Application No. 74989/01,

20 October 2005, para. 40.16 See http://www.ohchr.org/EN/NewsEvents/Pages/DisplayNews.aspx?NewsID=13584&

LangID=E.
http://undocs.org/A/RES/12/16http://undocs.org/A/RES/12/16


15/21

A/68/299

15/2113-42309

including small parties, are able disseminate their views and ideas. 17 The allocation

of media time before an election should be equal, on the basis of the principles on

equality before the law and non-discrimination. Denying specific parties access to

public media or providing biased coverage based on, for example, the unacceptability

of the party or candidates views is incompatible with the rights to freedom of

association and expression. Attention should be paid to the distinction between accessto the media as a political party and access to media as State officials due to the

potential for unfair advantage that arises out of incumbent political parties using

media coverage of official duties as a campaign platform.

40. Since the inception of his mandate, the Special Rapporteur has received

numerous allegations to the effect that, during electoral periods, political leaders

and supporters, particularly from the opposition, face heightened risks. Prior to,

during and after an election, those who voice or have voiced dissent are in many

countries subject to, inter alia, harassment, intimidation, corruption attempts, reprisals,

arbitrary arrests and imprisonment, solely on account of their political opinions or

beliefs. In this respect, the Special Rapporteur is disturbed about the case of an

opposition leader from Belarus who was subject, in 2011, to a harsh sentencing, after

he participated in a rally protesting the outcome of the presidential elections on 19December 2011. In the Islamic Republic of Iran, concern was expressed in relation to

former presidential candidates who staged a rally in solidarity with protesters in

Egypt, for which they had sought permission from the authorities, and who have been

kept largely incommunicado in their homes since February 2011.

41. Political parties and their members unduly restricted from exercising their

right to free association should have recourse to prompt and effective remedies. The

Special Rapporteur again stresses that States have an obligation to provide

independent and impartial institutions, including electoral management bodies and

media regulatory authorities, in addition to an independent judiciary, to ensure that

electoral processes are not exploited, thereby creating an uneven playing field for any

polit ical party. In order to be effective, the regulatory body should be independent

from executive powers, be empowered and have adequate capacity to formulate,monitor and enforce regulations. These are the key conditions for ensuring the

respect of the right to freedom of association in the context of elections.

B. Civil society organizations

42. Civil society organizations have also an important role to play in the context of

elections. The role of civil society in contributing to and sustaining a robust

democracy cannot be underestimated. In different capacities, organizations undertake

various activities to advocate for the concerns and interests of their beneficiaries, to

contribute to ensuring the integrity of the electoral process, to further contribute to the

achievement, protection and strengthening of democratic goals and standards, and to

keeping authorities accountable to the electorate. Among other things, civil society

organizations promote political participation, undertake voter education, campaign for

good governance reforms, provide vehicles for the expression of different interests,

but also act as platforms that cut across tribal, ethnic, linguistic and other barriers,

and catalyse public debate on issues that affect them.

__________________

17 OSCE/Office for Democratic Institutions and Human Rights and the Venice Commission,

Guidelines on Political Party Regulation, 2011, para. 147.


16/21

A/68/299

13-4230916/21

43. The Special Rapporteur stresses that the right to freedom of association

necessarily entails the freedom of associations to decide and engage in activities of

their own choosing and this extends to those wishing to engage in election-related

activities. Thus, among other liberties, associations have the freedom to advocate for

electoral and broader policy reforms; to discuss issues of public concern and

contribute to public debate; to monitor and observe election processes; to report onhuman rights violations and electoral fraud; to initiate polls and surveys, such as those

conducted during the voting process; to freely access the media, including new media,

such as the Internet; to seek, receive and impart information and ideas of all kinds,

regardless of frontiers, either orally, in writing or online; to build coalitions and

networks with other organizations, including from abroad; to engage in fundraising

activities; to engage in election observation, voter education and the inspection of

voters rolls; to interact with international and regional human rights bodies; and to

provide any forms of technical assistance and international cooperation.

44. Civil society organizations are inherently different from political parties, the

ultimate objective of which is to promote candidates who will run for elections with

the aim to govern. Thus, different regulations and restrictions are applicable to the

former. In line with this, associations should not be compelled to register as politicalparties and conversely, they should not be denied registration as associations because

they carry out what the authorities consider to be political activities. It is a source of

serious concern that the term political has been interpreted in many countries in

such a broad manner as to cover all sorts of advocacy activities; civic education;

research; and more generally, activities aimed at influencing public policy or public

opinion. It is clear that this interpretation is solely motivated by the need to deter any

forms of criticism. In this regard, concern was expressed about the situation in the

Russian Federation, where a human rights organization was the subject of an

inspection from the Prosecutors General Office, which claimed that the organization

had engaged in political activity by purposefully influencing the image of the

electoral commissions and other State organs, through participation in the electoral

process, after some members of the organization alleged irregularities during the

December 2011 elections. The Special Rapporteur recalls that the right to freedom ofassociation is itself a civil and political right facilitating the participation of all in

decision-making of public affairs. Freedom of association provides individuals with

unique opportunities to express their political opinions and to engage in cultural,

economic and social activities. In fact, associations accused of engaging in political

activities are often those that seek to keep Governments accountable, through good

governance and rule of law initiatives, such as anti-corruption measures, human rights

campaigns, institutional reforms and similar measures designed to strengthen

democracy. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that labelling associations as

political, and on that basis associating them with opposition parties or preventing

them from operating, is largely intended to silence voices that are critical of

Government policies and practices.

45. Although civil society organizations play an essential role during electiontime, freedom of association is, in many countries, restricted before, during and after

elections. As noted by the Special Rapporteur on the situation of human rights

defenders, acts of intimidation against civic activists often start long before the

beginning of election campaigns (A/HRC/13/22 para. 56). Restrictions placed on

unregistered associations preventing them from taking part in activities related to

the electoral process is one way of obstructing the work of independent voices. As the


17/21

A/68/299

17/2113-42309

Special Rapporteur has stated in previous reports, the right to freedom of association

applies equally to associations that are not registered (A/HRC/20/27, para. 56).

Because of their marginalization, women, youth, minorities, indigenous groups or

persons with disabilities may form or join unregistered associations for the

advancement of their interests. States should play an active role in removing barriers

that keep these marginalized and disempowered groups from participating in publiclife and exercising their rights in the context of elections. This is vital to ensure that

their voices are heard and their causes taken into account in the policies of the next

Government.

46. The freedom of associations to engage in activities related to the electoral

process should therefore be guaranteed to all associations, whether they are

apolitical in their means and operations, partially or totally supportive of the

Government or express criticism of Government policies. Hence, no associations

should be compelled to express support for any electoral candidate. Nevertheless, it

is important for any organization which voluntarily supports a particular candidate

or a party in an election to be transparent in declaring its motivation, as its support

may impact on elections results. The Special Rapporteur is of the view that the

strength of a democracy can be gauged by the extent to which diverse views anddiffering opinions are accommodated and even encouraged in public debate.

47. The right to freedom of association is an essential component of democracy

that empowers men and women and is therefore particularly important where

individuals may espouse minority or dissenting religious or political beliefs

(Council resolution 15/21, preamble). As such, no restrictions should be placed on

associations, solely because they do not share the same views as those in authority.

48. Governments in many countries are increasingly imposing restrictions on civil

societys ability to engage in the establishment of transparent, accountable and fair

democratic machinery and also from undertaking activities such as election

monitoring and voter mobilization. Barriers include the prohibition for certain

groups to register as associations; the prohibition from carrying out some activities

where a restrictive list of authorized activities is not provided by the legalframework; the obligation to adopt negative labels; the denial of accreditations to

associations to observe and monitor elections; or even the imposition of sanctions or

threats of sanctions for engaging in activities related to the electoral process. In the

Russian Federation, the implementation of the 2012 Introducing Amendments to

Certain Legislative Acts of the Russian Federation Regarding the Regulation of

Activities of Non-commercial Organizations Performing the Function of Foreign

Agents, the compliance of which with international standards is analysed in depth in

the Special Rapporteurs second thematic report to the Human Rights Council

(A/HRC/23/39), has led to audits and inspection campaigns against numerous civic

organizations that have conducted political activities and have failed to register as

a foreign agent. One of them, Golos Association for the defence of the rights of

voters, whose Internet website was hacked in the run-up to the parliamentary

elections, was, in April 2013, the first organization to be penalized under the new law.

49. As described in previous reports by the Special Rapporteur, any restrictions

must be permitted by international law, and thus meet the strict requirements of

international human rights law. In the context of elections, the Special Rapporteur

believes that the test threshold should be raised to a higher level. I t is therefore, not

sufficient for a State to invoke the protection of the integrity of the election process,
http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21http://undocs.org/A/HRC/23/39http://undocs.org/A/HRC/23/39http://undocs.org/A/RES/15/21http://undocs.org/A/HRC/20/27


18/21

A/68/299

13-4230918/21

the need to ensure non-partisan and impartial elections, the need to preserve peace

or security to limit these rights, insofar as the context of elections is a critical time

when individuals have a say about the fate of their country. In this regard, the

Human Rights Committee stated that the reference to democratic society in the

context of article 22, indicates in the Committees opinion, that the existence and

operation of associations, including those which peacefully promote ideas notnecessarily favourably viewed by the Government or the majority of the population,

is a cornerstone of a democratic society.18

50. In some cases, State interference does not occur when an association is formed,

but while an association is carrying out its activities. Often, restrictions occur when

authorities are faced with minority or dissenting views, or even when authorities

fear being held accountable for their failure to respect human rights. In Zimbabwe,

the offices of the Election Support Network, a coalition of 31 non-governmental

organizations formed in 2000 to promote free and fair elections, were arbitrarily

searched, on the grounds that the organization allegedly had subversive material,

documents, gadgets or recordings and had contravened the Immigration Act. These

searches have been perceived by civil society actors as an attempt to intimidate and

silence their voices in the context of the 2013 referendum and elections.

51. It is disturbing that in the context of elections, some States resort to

intimidation, harassment, civil and criminal defamation, or threats against

associations leaders who aim to express their opinions, grievances and aspirations.

The Special Rapporteur expresses grave concerns about the following situations

where international human rights norms and standards related to freedom of

association were violated. In Malaysia, one of the leaders of the Coalition for Fair

and Free Elections who has monitored the 2013 elections in the country, had been,

on various occasions, the target of severe and sustained acts of harassment,

intimidation and smear campaign describing her as an enemy who tried to smear

the nations name. In Nicaragua, human rights defenders active in associations,

who expressed concerns over a decision of the Constitutional Court allowing for the

re-election of the President were reportedly subjected to death threats, assaults andacts of intimidation. In Rwanda, a regional umbrella organization working on

human rights issues in the country reportedly experienced threats and intimidation

after it published a controversial report on legislative elections.

52. In other cases, civic activists faced arbitrary detention and long prison terms

after unfair trials. In Belarus, where multiple home and office raids, arrests, trials and

detention of numerous human rights defenders active in civic associations took place

as a result of their legitimate human rights activities during the presidential elections

in December 2010, including the sentencing of the Chairperson of the Human Rights

Centre Viasna to four and one-half years in detention. In the Islamic Republic of

Iran, a prominent lawyer was sentenced in 2011 to 11 years of imprisonment, which

was later reduced to a six-year prison term, and a 10-year ban on practising as a

lawyer for propaganda against the State, collusion and gathering with the aim of

acting against national security and membership of the Defenders of Human Rights

Centre. The accusations brought against the human rights lawyer were allegedly

based on interviews she had had with media in relation to her clients, who had been

imprisoned after the June 2009 presidential election in the Islamic Republic of Iran.

__________________

18 Human Rights Committee,Boris Zvozskov et a l v. Belarus (2001), CCPR/C/88/D/1039/2001,

para . 7 .2.


19/21

A/68/299

19/2113-42309

53. Activities that involve monitoring and observation of the conduct of election

processes by international groups may also be subject to undue restrictions. In this

context, it is worth recalling that the protection of State sovereignty against external

interferences is not listed as a legitimate interest in article 22 of the International

Covenant on Civil and Political Rights. The Special Rapporteur underscores the fact

that States cannot refer to additional grounds, even those provided by domesticlegislation, to restrict the right to freedom of association. Hence, restrictive measures

imposed under this guise unduly limit associations in their free operations.

Governments that exclude independent international observers from electoral

processes by enacting legislation to this effect, by making the process of registering as

an election monitor burdensome, or by inviting only friendly observation groups that

will not be critical in their monitoring, thus diluting or countering any criticism by

independent impartial groups, do not guarantee the right to freedom of association.

The Special Rapporteur recognizes that elections constitute a significant event in the

life of a nation and should be protected from foreign interference. Nevertheless, he

also recognizes the need to establish clear, specific and objective criteria that would

enable independent and impartial election observation by all monitors, including from

abroad. In this regard, blanket restrictions on international election observers groups

are inherently disproportionate and thus incompatible with international law

standards.

54. In the run-up to elections or following contested elections, there may also be

instances of Governments blocking funding for civil society organizations, including

those with mandates that are closely related to the conduct of elections. For instance,

in the run-up to the 2013 elections, the Government of the Bolivarian Republic of

Venezuela adopted the law against organized crime and terrorist financing, which

restricts funding of foundations, civic associations, non-profit associations, as well as

associations having political ends or groups of individuals who run for elections. The

Special Rapporteur, in his second thematic report (A/HRC/23/39), established access

to funding for civil society organizations as an integral part of the right to freedom of

association. He stated that any constraints on associations ability to access foreign

funding should be necessary in a democratic society and that common justificationsoffered by States, such as counter-terrorism measures, protection of State sovereignty,

enhancement of aid effectiveness, and the improvement of transparency and

accountability of civil society, often do not meet this strict standard.

55. Cases of arbitrary termination, suspension or closure of associations as a result

of activities carried out in the context of elections are another source of concerns. In

early April 2012, the Government of Swaziland deregistered the Trade Union

Congress of Swaziland and declared it illegal, after some leaders of the organization

called for the boycott of the 2013 elections. Such a drastic decision does not comply

with international norms and standards pertaining to freedom of association, which

make clear that termination, suspension or closure of associations are only possible

by a court judgement based on clear and imminent danger when an association

resorts to violence, or aims at the attainment of its objective by violence or byinstigating discrimination, hostility or violence, or is aimed at the destruction of the

rights and freedoms enshrined in international human rights law.


20/21

A/68/299

13-4230920/21

V. Conclusions and recommendations

56. The Special Rapporteur wishes to underscore the fact that electoral periods

are a unique moment in the life of a nation to confirm, and even strengthen,

democratic principles, such as non-discrimination, gender equality, pluralism of

views and parity. Democracy is a singular way of allowing for effective popularparticipation in decision-making processes at both national and local levels. He

stresses that electoral periods are such an important time to build democratic,

responsive and accountable institutions and that very strict and clear safeguards

should be put in place by States to prevent undue interference in public

freedoms, in particular in the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of

association. Further, in times of elections, States should make greater efforts to

facilitate and protect the exercise of these core rights, which should be enjoyed by

everyone, especially by members of groups at risk. In effect, genuine elections

cannot be achieved if the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of

association are curtailed.

57. The Special Rapporteur is deeply concerned about the increase in human

rights violations and abuses in several parts of the world, committed against

those who exercise or seek to exercise the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly

and of association in the context of elections, which indelibly stain such elections.

In the light of this, he wishes to make the following recommendations, which

should be read in conjunction with those already formulated in his two thematic

reports presented at the Human Rights Council in 2012 (A/HRC/20/27, para. 84-

100) and 2013 (A/HRC/23/39, para. 81-83), some of which are reiterated here.

58. The Special Rapporteur calls upon States in times of elections:

(a) To recognize that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of

association play a decisive role in the emergence and existence of effective

democratic systems, as they allow for dialogue, pluralism, tolerance and

broadmindedness, where minority or dissenting views or beliefs are respected;

(b) To ensure that the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and ofassociation are enjoyed by everyone, any registered or unregistered entities,

including women, those victims of discrimination because of their sexual

orientation and gender identity, youth, persons belonging to minorities,

indigenous peoples, non-nationals, including stateless persons, refugees or

migrants, and members of religious groups, as well as activists advocating

economic, social, and cultural rights;

(c) To ensure that no one is criminalized for exercising the rights to

freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, nor is subject to threats or use

of violence, harassment, persecution, intimidation or reprisals;

(d) To greater facilitate and protect the exercise of the rights to freedom

of peaceful assembly and of association, and in this regard, be particularly

vigilant in relation to the specific needs of the aforementioned groups which are

at greater risk of attacks and stigmatization of all types;

(e) To ensure that an enabling framework is provided for political parties

to be formed regardless of their political ideology and to enjoy the level

playing field, in particular in relation to their ability to access funding, and to

exercise their rights to freedom of expression, including through peaceful

demonstrations and access to the media;


21/21

A/68/299

21/2113-42309

(f) To increase the threshold for imposing legitimate restrictions on the

rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association, that is, to ensure that

the strict test of necessity and proportionality in a democratic society, coupled

with the principle of non-discrimination, is made particularly difficult to meet;

(g)To ensure that a well detailed and timely written explanation for the

imposition of any restriction is provided, and that such restrictions can

promptly be the subject of an independent and impartial judicial review;

(h) To provide individuals exercising their rights to freedom of peaceful

assembly and of association with the protection offered by the right to freedom

of expression;

(i) To allow unimpeded access to and use of information and

communication technology through which the right to freedom of peaceful

assembly and of association can be exercised;

(j) To ensure that those who violate and/or abuse the rights of individuals

to freedom of association and of peaceful assembly are held fully accountable by

an independent and democratic oversight body and by the courts of law;

(k) To ensure that victims of violations and abuses of the rights to

freedom of peaceful assembly and of association have the right to a timely and

effective remedy and obtain redress.

59. The Special Rapporteur calls upon national human rights institutions

complying with the Paris Principles to play a key role in monitoring and publicly

reporting on the fulfilment by the States of the abovementioned

recommendations.

60. The Special Rapporteur calls upon election observers to place particular

emphasis on the enjoyment of the rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of

association when determining whether an election was genuine.

61. The Special Rapporteur calls upon international and regional humanrights mechanisms, including special procedures, treaty bodies and the

universal periodic review, to pay specific attention to the issue of elections as a

context where the rights of freedom of peaceful assembly and association are

more likely to be curtailed.

62. The Special Rapporteur again encourages the Human Rights Committee

to consider developing general comments on articles 21 and 22 of the

International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, with a particular focus on

the enjoyment of both rights in the context of elections.

63. The Special Rapporteur calls upon the General Assembly and the Human

Rights Council to address thoroughly the issue of human rights violations and

abuses in the context of elections.

64. The Special Rapporteur calls upon the diplomatic community and other

relevant stakeholders to publicly denounce violations and abuses committed

against those exercising or seeking to exercise their rights to freedom of peaceful

assembly and of association in the context of elections, and to provide support

to these victims.

Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association by Maina Kiai

Documents

Transcript of Rights to freedom of peaceful assembly and of association by Maina Kiai